Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 1: High Court has observed that the Tehsildar has no competence to attest the mutation of land without a proper sale deed and upheld the decision of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) to set aside such mutation.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar dismissed the plea challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) under which the mutation of Tehsildar was cancelled. Court said that it is crystal clear that powers under Section 121 can only be exercised by the Collector of first class and the Tehsildar, as per Section 6 of the Land Revenue Act, is only an Assistant Collector first class and, therefore, not competent to attest mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act.
“That apart, mutation under Section 121 can only be attested where the land with regard to which any question of title has arisen is under settlement operation. In the instant case, Tehsildar, as observed in the impugned order, has attested the mutation purportedly under Section of the Land Revenue Act and, therefore, not being a Collector was not competent to do so, moreso, when an area where the subject land was situated was not under any settlement operation”, Justice Kumar recorded.
Court further clarified that even the mutation under Section 26 could not have been attested by the Tehsildar, as under Section 26 of the Land Revenue Act and the only dispute which arises with regard to an entry to be made in a record or in a register of mutation is to be corrected after holding summary enquiry.
“Be that as it may, the impugned mutation by Tehsildar does not fall either under Section 26 or Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act and, therefore, impugned mutation attested by the Tehsildar in favour of the petitioner was totally illegal, unauthorized and highly uncalled for”, reads the judgment.
Court said the aggrieved party who questioned the mutation being a khananasheen daughter of the estate holder, was rightly conferred the right of inheritance qua the land left behind by her father, namely, Gani Dar thus the plea of the petitioner-Mushtaq Ahmad Khan that the impugned order cannot sustain as he was not provided an adequate opportunity of being heard is belied by the record.
Court on perusal of the record said, no sale deed was ever executed between the parties and mutation was attested by having resort to Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act. Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act can be resorted to only if during the course of settlement operation a dispute arises with regard to title.
Court added that it can be decided summarily by the Collector of 1st Class, whose decision is subject to such orders, as may be passed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner and shall be binding till it is set aside by a decree of civil court.
Follow our WhatsApp channel